Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Have you never had the experience of hooking up with someone who was just as into it as you were? Have you never felt someone tremble under your touch? That is powerful stuff. If the best analogy you can come up with is having someone cook for you vs going out to eat, you've clearly missed out on the pleasure that can be had through giving someone else pleasure.

A prostitute may put on a good act, but in reality they just want to get it over with so they can turn the next trick or go home for the night. It is NOT at all the same. The BIGGEST turn on as far as I'm concerned is knowing that the person you are with is as filled with lust as you are.

Or perhaps they just made a spelling mistake that once submitted slashdot will not let them correct (as far as I know).

For example. I just accidentally typed "submitting" rather than "submitted". I understand the difference between those two words. For whatever reason, I was thinking "submitted" and my fingers typed "submitting". I happened to catch it but sometimes I miss stuff like that. I really doubt it has anything to do with critical thinking. It might mean that their mind is racing ahead of their fingers.

I also fully understand the different between "their", "there", and "they're" yet sometimes I still use the wrong one. I also know the difference between "to", "two", and "too". Again, I wish I used the correct spelling at all times but I don't.

For whatever reason, I have a bad habit of type "he" instead of "the". Maybe the "t" on my keyboard sticks. Or maybe I'm just not perfect. In fact I made at least 7 spelling mistakes on this post alone, - that I know of.

It's a slashdot post, not a novel, a term paper, or an article I'm writing for a scientific journal. I trust that most readers of slashdot will be able to discern what I intended to write based on context if I do happen to make a mistake. A few folks may get annoyed by any mistakes I make but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

An office or school room is typically lit with fluorescent lighting which consumes more energy than LEDs but much less than incandescents. The problem with lighting whole rooms with LEDs is that the light tends to be more focused and directional. They are getting better but remember we are talking about going from 500 lux to 10,000. That would be a challenge to do with LEDs.

You'd need a lot more fixtures. It would not only require more power but the cost of retrofitting a school would be very high. Though LEDs last a long time, the number of bulbs needed means that maintaining those lighting systems over time would be expensive too.

Sometimes the right solution is the simple one that requires LESS technology rather than more. Get the kids outside.

Average indoor light levels at an office or school are about 500 lux. Outdoors on a cloudy day is about 10,000. You think we consume a lot of energy now, just try illuminating all the classrooms to 10,000 lux.

It's not about how much time you spend on the computer. It's about how much time you spent outdoors as a kid and adolescent. Not getting enough time outdoors doesn't guarantee you'll become myopic but apparently it increases the chances quite a bit.

I do understand what you're saying about "winner take all" but to me if you're going to go to the trouble of dividing up a state's votes, why not just go the whole way and get rid of the electoral college altogether.

Actually that's not true. There are the two major parties but there are also many others. All the candidates from the other parties are referred to as "3rd party candidates" which is kind of a strange way to put it. There were about 14 of these parties that had presidential candidates on the ballot in 2012. There were probably as many other people on the ballot that had no designated party affiliation at all.

Ross Perot was a fairly legit 3rd party candidate back in 1992. He had enough support that he was included in the presidential debates. He ended up getting no electoral votes but a substantial number in the popular vote. He kind of tanked at the end.

Ralph Nador and his green party may have gotten enough support in 2000 that it ended up tipping the election to the republicans and George Bush. This is why 3rd party candidates struggle. They are often seen as having no chance to win and voting for them may ultimately lead to the guy you least want in office getting in.

This is clearly case of data being misused. The graphic only tracks employees for the first 90 days. What happens after that? There wasn't even that much difference at 90 days. The trend for users of the four browsers was pretty much the same.

Huge bellies, size 36 pants, and being out of breath from going up a flight of stairs are the results of being over 40. They are the results of being out of shape. Even wrinkles at 40 to a certain extent are the result of lifestyle choices.

I was in good shape in my 20s too and it would be a lie to say I "feel" better now than I did then. Personally I wouldn't mind having my 25 year old body back but even at 50 I've still got more speed and stamina that a lot of twenty somethings. And frankly, learning has continued well beyond that age. There's a lot of stupid things I did back then and I've got more skills.

In 2007 there was a 4Gig iPhone that was $499. The $599 model was 8 Gig.

6.1 million original iPhones were sold in spite of the shortcomings you mentioned.

iPhone sales surpassed blackberry sales for the first time in the 4th quarter of 2008, - less than a year and 1/2 after it had been introduced. Overtaking a market leader within 18 months is pretty remarkable, especially considering Apple had never sold a phone before.

Bill Gates recognized the threat right away. RIM didn't and has never recovered.

I'm not sure the Apple Watch is going to have the same level of success. The smart phone solved a real problem by combining a cellphone with a PDA, and an MP3 player, - two or three devices that many people were carrying. The iPhone was a better implementation of the smart phone than what had existed at the time.

The Smart Watch doesn't solve those kinds of problems except for perhaps people who carry fitness gadgets with them.

Me, I think the Apple watch is interesting but it is ten times more expensive than it should be
and is not waterproof, and these two facts mean I will never ever own one.

The "cheap" Apple Watch is $350. You really think it's only worth $35? You're right though, they aren't waterproof but they are water resistant enough that they can be submerged in 3 ft of water for 30 minutes without suffering damage. That means you can safely wash dishes with it on or even take a shower. Swimming would be something I would avoid.

An Apple Watch that's suitable for more dressy occasions is going to cost close to $600 but hopefully 3rd parties will sell some nicer bands that will be compatible with the aluminum version.

I have a cell phone and a watch. It's a nice diver's watch with a mechanical rotating ring that functions as a timer. It cost be about $250 if I remember right. The watch is almost always with me. The phone is not. I don't want to fish a phone out of my pocket or retrieve it from wherever I happened to leave it just to check the time. If a watch can quickly and easily provide me with more information, - all the better.

To me the biggest problem with the Apple Watch is the short battery life. It may not be Apple's smart watch that ends up being the big success but when smart watches can function independently from phones, the battery life improves, and the cost comes down, they will be extremely popular.

Think about Smart Home products a little bit. There's way too much reliance on phone apps for them to be very convenient, - but if you could control things in your house via a watch?, - that's a big improvement.

I hear this sort of claim all the time but I'm not sure how true it is. For example, my organization seems to have difficulty finding mechanical engineers. So for the first time we are going through the hoops to go the H1-B route. And there are many hoops. It is probably not a big deal for companies that hire a lot of them but it is if you haven't done it before.

One hoop is that notification that you're hiring an H1-B worker has to be posted in your office with the salary that you are offering them. I don't know what all of our engineers make, but I can tell you that the offer is in the range of what we are paying them. It could be on the low end of the range, I don't know for sure. It is definitely not 10% of the going rate.

Apple Watch: Accurate within 50ms of UTC. Read and delete email, built-in speaker and mic so you can receive calls. It tracks your movement and exercise. Use Apple Pay, play your music, use Siri and get any notification you get on iPhone today. 18 hour battery life in a typical day. Sport model starting at $349, stainless steel price: $549-$1049 for 38mm, 42mm is $599-$1099, and gold edition starting at $10k. Pre-orders begin April 10th, available April 24th.

Our phones do all of this, are in ubiquitous use, wont stop working if we carelessly wash our hands, and havent cost this much for nearly a decade. And the real kick in the ass is that apple will immediately slash prices 80% once an android competitor comes out and hangs around in this artificial market long enough until people realize singing talking wrist watches are about as practical as google glass.

The Apple Watch has a water resistance rating of IPX7 which means that it can be submerged in 3 feet of water for 30 minutes and it will still work. Washing dishes aren't going to hurt it.

I can't really say I'm in the market for something like the Apple Watch, - not at its current price, but to me a watch is a much preferable platform for some tasks than a phone, - getting the time being the obvious example. I don't want to drag out my phone for every little thing. I have an armband for running or riding with a smart phone but I don't like it. It's a hassle. A watch makes a lot more sense. That fact that a phone can perform all these tasks is besides the point.

The 18 hour battery life is something that I think will be a problem. That makes it a ton less convenient than a regular watch. This is a bigger problem than the price in my mind. If you're into fitness at all, the price isn't so bad for something that incorporates a heart rate monitor and other fitness related apps.